Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Gay Marriage Legal in New Hampshire
A month ago I noted that New Hampshire was expected to become the sixth state where gay marriage is legal. Today it did. It is the second state, after Maine, where the legislature, rather than a court, has extended marriage to same-sex couples.
Reason coverage of gay marriage here.
IceTrey|6.3.09 @ 7:26PM|#
When are you guys going to stop calling it "gay" marriage and start calling it what it is "same sex" marriage. After all two straight guys or girls could marry. Which actually sounds like a great idea. All the tax and health benefits and you could still date members of the opposite sex!
|6.3.09 @ 7:32PM|#
Wasn't it a court ruling that made it so that they had to offer some sort of gay marriage or civil union in the first place?
|6.3.09 @ 7:38PM|#
Lynch signed a bill into law in 2007 allowing for civil unions.
I don't remember there being a court order involved, but I could be
wrong. This latest bill was definitely not a result of a court
order. It was an act of the legislature deciding that "separate"
can never be "equal".
Like Jacob said, this new law is purely an act of the legislature.
So even if there was a court order involved with the '07 civil
unions law, it doesn't matter.
Syd|6.3.09 @ 7:59PM|#
I thought Vermont was first (overriding the governor's veto), Maine second, and New Hampshire third.
jimmy|6.3.09 @ 8:44PM|#
New Hampshire was the first state to allow civil unions without a court challenge. Although as I understand these things it was expressly so that politicians would be given a grace period before same-sex marriage would be an issue. Oops.
|6.3.09 @ 8:48PM|#
All gays wanting to be married when have to move to the Northeast, because they sure as hell won't be moving to Iowa.
ed|6.3.09 @ 9:56PM|#
IceTrey | June 3, 2009, 7:26pm | #
When are you guys going to stop calling it "gay" marriage and start
calling it what it is: "same sex" marriage. After all two straight
guys or girls could marry.
What IceTrey said. Let us think outside the political/hysterical
box for a moment, shall we? Ponder this hypothetical: You're a
single male (or female) with no wife (or husband) or children, who
has paid your extorted Social Security tax for many years. When you
die, having no legal beneficiaries for your SS "account,"
your accrued "savings" will revert back to the state, or more
accurately, simply disappear without a trace. Are there any
civil-libertarian economists (if there is such a species)
who have pondered the long-term consequences of two straight men
(or women) marrying in order to circumvent SS's rigid heterosexual
beneficiary rules? It's something to consider, no?
runescape gold|6.3.09 @ 10:14PM|#
Yeah! New Hampshire gives gays and lesbians a chance to marry, while shoving it up the asses of their trans population. Let's celebrate!
Some Guy|6.3.09 @ 10:16PM|#
Are there any civil-libertarian economists (if there is such
a species) who have pondered the long-term consequences of two
straight men (or women) marrying in order to circumvent SS's rigid
heterosexual beneficiary rules? It's something to consider,
no?
I haven't read the rules in question, but I can't imagine what they
could possibly say that they would need to be tweaked at all, or at
worst very slightly, to accommodate this.
Rhywun|6.3.09 @ 10:57PM|#
Yeah! New Hampshire gives gays and lesbians a chance to marry, while shoving it up the asses of their trans population.
Huh? Unless there's a specific "no trannies" clause, this should
allow them to marry whomever they want. I don't see your point.
Syd|6.3.09 @ 11:53PM|#
I think it allows transsexuals to marry themselves. Or maybe just hermaphrodites.
The State of California|6.4.09 @ 12:05AM|#
Better not find none of them thar married queers comin' round these parts!
Elemenope|6.4.09 @ 12:50AM|#
Anybody else here support legal polygamy or group
marriage?
Yup.
The State of California | June 4, 2009, 12:05am | #
Better not find none of them thar married queers comin' round these
parts!
Nah, they can come if they are already married. Just don't be
lookin' to get married here.
|6.4.09 @ 1:22AM|#
Anybody else here support legal polygamy or group
marriage?
Sort of. I'm for state-sponsored marriage if the state has no
discretion to turn down any combination of people wanting that
legal package of rights and obligations.
If the state still has the discretion to refuse anyone, then
no.
My first choice would still be to get the state out of the marriage
business in its entirety, but either way of disempowering the state
in this matter works for me.
Sosnowski|6.4.09 @ 3:29AM|#
As a New Hampshirvian in exile, I must congratulate my state on using the correct channels to reach its absurd decision. Bravo.
|6.4.09 @ 7:04AM|#
I also support polygamy or group marriage being legalized. I do recognize that it's a LOT more complex than allowing same-sex marriage.
MJ|6.4.09 @ 7:19AM|#
In related news the New Hampshire legislature voted to rename oranges to "apples".
|6.4.09 @ 7:30AM|#
Anybody else here support legal polygamy or group
marriage?
*raises hand
Uh... yeah.
MNG|6.4.09 @ 7:48AM|#
As a married man I can say that there are corresponding obligations that are sure to make two straight folks that don't love each other think twice about getting hitched. For one thing, you pay more taxes when you are married (remember the "marriage penalty?")
Bruce Majors|6.4.09 @ 7:53AM|#
Hey IceTrey, politically correct much? Don't you mean it should
be called LGBTQC marriage? I mean, saying it is "same sex" marriage
means that you are saying two human beings who refuse a specific
sex or gender assignment, and may be transitioning from one thing
to another, cannot be married, since they are not the same
sex.
Whether gay marriage is legal in the US or not is small potatoes.
The main benefit we have been missing is that we gays have been
taxed for decades to feed the Social Security ponzi scheme but our
partners and their kids could not get survivor benefits. The fact
that Demwits discovered gay marriage as a wedge issue exactly as
the Social Security system is going to start cutting back benefits
so that we still won't get them is curious no? I think they just
want all the old gay men to marry and import young Latino guys so
they can have a new workforce to tax.
I want to marry a European and get EU citizenship anyway. Any cute
libertarian men should feel free to contact me.
MNG|6.4.09 @ 7:54AM|#
"If the state still has the discretion to refuse anyone, then
no."
Way to let the perfect be the enemy of the good goofball.
I guess you are against any tax reduction too on the grounds of
being against all taxes.
|6.4.09 @ 9:33AM|#
Well-lubricated Slope
Can we leave the racial slurs out of our handles, at least?
kinnath|6.4.09 @ 9:43AM|#
Can we leave the racial slurs out of our handles, at
least?
G o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o a l !
kinnath|6.4.09 @ 9:46AM|#
Anybody else here support legal polygamy or group
marriage?
Let's not forget incestuous relationships as well!
Fascitis Necrotizante|6.4.09 @ 10:07AM|#
Yes, yes all relationships should be legal. But I don't particularly care for packages of special privileges bestowed on people just b/c they shack up. Said as someone happily single.
d brin|6.4.09 @ 10:12AM|#
Can man-dog marriage be far behind?
Only after dogs have been uplifted and can make informed consent .
. .
Rhywun|6.4.09 @ 10:37AM|#
"I think they just want all the old gay men to marry and
import young Latino guys"
I have no problem with that.
Rhywun|6.4.09 @ 10:40AM|#
"But I don't particularly care for packages of special
privileges bestowed on people just b/c they shack up."
I don't especially care one way or the other for monetary favors,
but I sure as shit want the non-monetary benefits, like the ability
to bring my partner to America so he be a productive member of
society here rather than languish in that shithole Malaysia. For
example.
bob42|6.4.09 @ 11:06AM|#
re: Polygamy. If a guy is stupid enough to take on two wives,
the government should not stop him.
Likewise, the government should not prohibit the free association
that is oral sex. Today, laws prohibiting that act (regardless of
the gender of the participants) are still on the books in about a
dozen states and the District of Columbia.
That's right. Blowjobs are illegal in Washington D.C.
Now that same sex marriage is becoming legal in more places, maybe
we'll get a chance to test Pat Robertson's slippery slope
theory
that sex with
ducks will follow.
|6.4.09 @ 12:07PM|#
Well-lubricated Slope | June 4, 2009, 12:28am | #
Anybody else here support legal polygamy or group
marriage?
Yes,
I am against state sponsored marriage. But as far as it goes,
polygaminst, and polyamorous people have as much a right as anyone
else.
More so than gays, because they can produce kids, and it is an
older tradition.
Actually, I think they rate marriage more than monogamous
heterosexuals, because mostly monogamous heterosexuals are just
dating really. Even the catholics these days.
|6.4.09 @ 12:18PM|#
I don't especially care one way or the other for monetary favors,
but I sure as shit want the non-monetary benefits, like the ability
to bring my partner to America so he be a productive member of
society here rather than languish in that shithole Malaysia. For
example.
I wholly agree with that.
But I am not sure that you should have to marry for that.
I mean, I might like to bring in a female partner from overseas.
But I really don't want to do the marriage thing.
short, fat bastard|6.4.09 @ 12:24PM|#
I don't especially care one way or the other for monetary
favors, but I sure as shit want the non-monetary benefits, like the
ability to bring my partner to America so he be a productive member
of society here rather than languish in that shithole Malaysia. For
example.
Well, if you could buy him, then you could bring him into the US.
Of course, you would need to declare him and pay the appropriate
duties.
Zeb|6.4.09 @ 12:33PM|#
"More so than gays, because they can produce kids, and it is an
older tradition."
This is always a crap argument. By this reasoning, straight people
who can't or don't want to have kids shouldn't be allowed to marry
either. And loads of gay people do have kids, even if it is not
possible for both members of a couple to be biological
parents.
As a New Hampshire resident, I can fill you in on some of the other
details as well. There was no court case prompting either the civil
union or gay marriage laws.
The reference to trannies getting the short end of the stick refers
to a bill which did not pass a few months ago which was intended to
guarantee rights to transsexuals in places of public accommodation.
Opponents called it the "bathroom bill".
Rhywun|6.4.09 @ 12:57PM|#
But I am not sure that you should have to marry for
that.
Well, that's a different battle.
The reference to trannies getting the short end of the stick
refers to a bill which did not pass a few months ago
Ah, OK. Thx for the clarification.
|6.4.09 @ 1:07PM|#
By this reasoning, straight people who can't or don't want
to have kids shouldn't be allowed to marry either.
I am not into "not allowing" very much of anything. They should be
allowed to do as they will so long as it doesn't harm
another.
But, as the great and once prolific commenter brought to my
attention about marriage, "what is the difference between that and
dating?"
Or something like that. It used to be that when you were married,
you couldn't leave that person at will. But we have moved beyond
that.
See, I am generally against marriage, I am for dating, and if you
have kids, you have some kind of legal ramifications.
But if any group of people are going to engage in the antiquated
anachronistic social custom known as marriage, it should be the
polygamists.
|6.4.09 @ 1:21PM|#
Rhywun | June 4, 2009, 12:57pm | #
But I am not sure that you should have to marry for that.
Well, that's a different battle.
Same battle, different aspect.
I mean my take on the whole gay marriage thing, as I read in these
pages is that it is a lot about "what about me"
The gays, think they are left out, rightly so, because they are
oppressed by the government, as we all are, but they don't have
some of the loopholes that straight people have that want to get
married.
The singles, (that want to stay single) are left out because
everybody is fighting for the gays rights, but we that are single
don't seem to have a voice. I want to bring my hottie back to
America for fun and companionship, but don't want to get married. I
don't want to ask the state for permission. I don't want to be
committing a crime by the military if I break up and want to have
sex with someone else, before the government says I am broke
up.
IDK, I am not finding my voice, or my thoughts clearly today.
But basically, I don't want to ask for the governments permission
to be with anyone. I don't want the government to decide how much I
or anyone else should pay taxes based on whether the govt says they
are married.
That and the government is actually oppressive to everyone.
A very good friend of mine is married to a foreigner, and has money
for attorneys and all that crap, and is having the damnest time
getting her back to the states so she can be with him in his house.
He has travelled the rest of the world with her, but can't get her
back to the US.
I wonder how it works with the Russian bride thingy.
I mean, I can see where you are coming from. As hard as my friend
has it, at least there is a law allowing him to bring back his
honey. You have no such recognition. And that IS bs.
IceTrey|6.4.09 @ 2:08PM|#
@Bruce Majors
Well if they aren't of the same sex (officially) they can get
"regular" married. Do you call a union between a man and a women
"straight marriage"? No? Because in all states a gay man can
legally marry a gay women. Basically these laws mean that any two
people, no matter their sex, can get married. "Gay marriage"
implies that it is about a persons SEXUALITY not their SEX. There's
a difference.
|6.5.09 @ 11:15AM|#
How can they do this? Don't they know that Obama, the source of
all truth and goodness in this country is opposed to same-sex
marriage?
-jcr
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245